Not an article (only huge airports get their own articles). Metaur 17:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Merge & redirect. Useful content should be moved to Dublin, and I think a redirect to the same page would be in order for both articles. --PeterTalk 00:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

its not needed, all that information could be put (concisely) into the main article on Dublin - London Gatwick and City don't have their own articles Prof Jack 17:44, 10 December 2007 (EST) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Delete. A redirect makes sense for something famous like Taj Mahal because someone might search for it, not knowing what city it was in. Dublin Airport isn't that famous, you'd need to be fairly dull not to realise it is near Dublin, and even then if you search for "Dublin Airport", the software is going to find the Dublin article automatically. Pashley 18:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

More by the same prolific contributor. I've already merged the relevant material from the first article so it's ready for quick-deletion, but the second might have some stand-alone value. -- Paul Richter 20:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I would have usually speedy-deleted this one, but there seems to be a mood in the air that we should run the vfd process more often, so here it is. I'm pretty sure there is no use to this article beyond a travel agency advert. --PeterTalk 17:00, 13 December 2007 (EST)

A license reading expert should check this [1] out but it doesn't seem okay to me.--Wandering 11:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Delete. I'd say it obviously violates the intent of their "managed rights" license. For all I know a lawyer could find a loophole, but we don't want to play that game. I'd support speedy deletion. Pashley 09:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

It does not rate its own article unless, as on other Goan beaces, there are accomodations. I'm OK with a delete, but we should redirect to Panaji if the name is well enough known people that people might search for it. That seems somewhat likely to me since people navigate Goa by beach names -- Calangute, Anjuna, etc. Whether or not we redirect, the info on this beach goes in the "get out" section of Panaji. Pashley 08:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Redirect seems right. We should probably codify guidance (if it's not out there already) to do redirects for non-destinations with famous/well-known names. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Delete. It's a pity, as it's a nice shot and it would be good to be able to use more things like this from flickr, but the non-commercial verbiage is a show stopper. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I created this article way back in 2004 against some opposition, and after three years, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong -- the Eat sections in Malaysia and Singapore both just keep growing. So I'm going to roll the content back into those articles, and ask that this be nuked. (Or maybe redirected to South-East Asia so we don't lose any Google/mirror/cache brownie points.) Jpatokal 08:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

keep. Singapore, in particular, has a foodie culture (or a food obsession) and the article is of interest to travelers seeking to understand what Singapore food is all about. It can, perhaps, be fleshed out with more information on where to eat (I don't mean specific restaurants but rather text that explains the 'food stall' culture of Singapore), but, even as it is, it is of interest.--Wandering 13:28, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Merge and redirect. I agree the info is of interest, I think he's saying that he realized it belongs in the "Eat" sections of Malaysia and Singapore, and doesn't need its own separate article. He's moving the info there before deleting, it won't be lost :) – cacahuatetalk 03:02, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I still think it should be a separate article. It is not necessarily of interest to all travelers but is directed at foodies. Why overload the Singapore article?--Wandering 10:38, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Also, since it applies to both Singapore and Malaysia, why have two copies? Pashley 19:46, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

a) Because every other country on WT has its cuisine info on the same page. There was a whomping big "See Malaysian and Singaporean cuisine for details" link at the top of Singapore#Eat, but most of the content had been readded (and hence duplicated) by well-meaning contributors, despite my occasional crackdown attempts.

b) Because food in Singapore and Malaysia is not the same. Very similar, yes, but there are tons of small differences (and a few large ones, eg. "Hokkien mee" means entirely different dishes) that can only sensibly be covered on separate pages. Jpatokal 11:17, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Delete. Provided content has been merged, I think this content should be directly on the country pages' eat sections, as it is for any other country article I can think of. Were the cuisines identical, perhaps we should keep the article, but I'll trust Jani's opinion that they are sufficiently different. I don't think a redirect makes sense, since it would want to point to both Malaysia and Singapore. --PeterTalk 01:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Question: Might it make sense to set up a class of Travel topics on cuisines, with this (or possibly one article on each of the two cuisines) as the exemplar? The fact that we've sat on this one for so long implies to me that we're uncomfortable with deleting it, yet there is no precedent to keep it. Let's discuss one last time, then make a decision. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:29, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Any chance this could/should be turned into an Itinerary? My wife and I cycled parts of the Caledonian Canal some years ago and had a great deal of fun, but I'm not sure a sensible Itinerary article featuring the Canal could be constructed. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Keep if you can sleep there. Travellers ask "which beach did you stay on?", not "which town", so many Goan beaches are valid article titles. Pashley 07:06, 24 December 2007 (EST)

However, lacking anything that says that this beach has hotels, I don't see grounds for keeping the article. I'd say redirect to Goa until somebody sorts through the beaches and makes real articles of the destination. Same applies for the next beach below. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Redirect for now; see previous comment. The pre-banner text was pure touting and has no business here. It does, however, establish that there's lodging on/near this particular beach, so it may pass the you-can-sleep-there test. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:19, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Delete. I think I was the one to delete these earlier as non-articles. They are plausibly travel topics, but currently lack any useful information, just fluff. And I'm not convinced there is anything useful to be said on this matter, speaking as someone who does travel for the purpose of language acquisition. If you want to learn language X, go spend time in country X. Any practical information beyond that becomes a guide to "how to learn languages," which seems beyond the scope of Wikitravel to me. While language certainly is a reason to travel, I don't see a practical purpose for a travel topic about this motivation. --PeterTalk 20:55, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Keep. They are valid travel topics. We should keep them, as we do with many stub articles, and see if they develop. An article on the other side of language travel, Teaching English, was once vfd'd and is now a guide, almost star. Pashley 21:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)

There's lots they could cover: If I want to learn Spanish, what are the differences in cost, accent, etc. between Spain, Argentina, etc.? Which schools are good? In interesting cities? On good beaches? Which have courses specifically for business Spanish? Pashley 21:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Fair enough, I might have been being shortsighted. I think the generic Language tourism should be delimited, though, to a basic index of specific language tourism articles (which right now only includes the stub Spanish one). I suppose I could cobble together a decent article of this nature for Russian.

Only one other point, though—I don't like the name "Language Tourism," as it seems neo-logismy to me. Wouldn't Learning Spanish abroad be better? --PeterTalk 22:05, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I like Learning Spanish abroad much better as well. Tourism is one reason to travel, language learning is another. Texugo 23:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Surely a single-item "Language tourism" index should be a sub-section of the relevent "Travel topics" index, at least until it grows too long to fit there.

Keep. It is an island town with a temple that is (apparently) an important pilgrimage site. There is at least one place to stay [3], perhaps more.--Wandering 09:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Quick check (LP India) reveals three additional places to stay on the island and a couple of other interesting sights too. Would love to go there!--Wandering 10:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Hmm, yes you are right. However... Is Omkareshwar the actual name of the village? What about the other big temple served by the facilities on this island? I considered a redirect to an article for the island itself, but I can't be sure what the name of that is either. Texugo 22:34, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Keep. It is definitely the name of the place – cacahuatetalk 16:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Unless we want a similar article for every town from which the Northern Lights can be seen, I think this can be deleted, along with the two redirects created for it, Aurora Watching in Tromso and Aurora watching in Tromso. Most of the information here is not location-specific and can be merged into the Northern Lights article if it's not already there, and that which is location-specific will easily fit on the Tromsø page.

Delete. There are many Mankameshwar Temples, many well known, and we'll have to add a disambiguation page for the redirects. I don't think it is an important enough destination for that. (BTW, aren't we supposed to wait 14 days before taking action?)--Wandering 23:41, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Delete. An attraction, not a destination, but did somebody jump the gun, W? I don't see it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:03, 2 January 2008 (EST)

It was redirected and then reverted. --Wandering 15:34, 7 January 2008 (EST)

The images listed above were copied from WP/Commons. Recently admin of commons started to change licensing tag of these images from "PD" to "Copyrighted free use", and I also started the same on shared:. So please remove (delete) them from en: and use images on shared:. -- Tatata7 04:29, 18 December 2007 (EST)

"Delete". Not suitable for an article. --Wandering 16:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Unsure, but incline to keep. Not a destination for sure, but is there a reason why feluccas and other things like them are less of a topic than cruise ships? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Keep, but rename... cruise ship articles are pretty controversial already, I don't think I would keep it on those grounds if the article was just about feluccas in general, but it's set up as an itinerary, and I think it's a pretty popular one... I'm sure the info could just as easily be put into the get in / get out sections of Cairo and Luxor, but I don't think it hurts to arrange this itinerary also, as long as it remains an itinerary and doesn't turn into a travel topic about feluccas ;) I vote to rename to Take a felucca down the Nile, or something similar – cacahuatetalk 18:58, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Keep, but rename. "Felucca cruises on the Nile"? Felucca cruises are big in Egypt and, as an itinerary, it has the makings of a decent article already. Jpatokal 02:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Just Nile cruises I think. Feluccas are one option, but there are also bigger boats. I'd suggest one itinerary article covering all waterborne possibilities. Pashley 08:20, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Nile cruises is a little to general. Felucca rides and bigger Nile cruises are geared toward different sets of travelers ($5 per night vs. $40+) and are arranged in different ways. Combining them could get unwieldy. I would vote to rename it for easy linking from relevant articles, e.g. "Do: take a felucca cruise on the Nile" Merrywanderer 10:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think "Nile cruises" is too general at all. A sensible way to structure the article would be to put common considerations together (e.g. "Stay safe" will be nearly independent of how large a boat you're on) and then break out sections for feluccas, high-end cruises, etc. The existing article could serve as the core for that, so I'm with Jani: rename this article to Nile Cruises, use the good work you already did as the starting point, and start adding things as alternatives to feluccas are developed. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I disagree with you a bit about their similarity (Understand, Prepare, and Get In will be different), but I won't argue too much about combining them. Perhaps the name "Nile Cruise" would be better for linking (e.g. "Do: take a Nile cruise" or "Get In: take a Nile cruise from Aswan").

Nile Cruise is too broad. There is a huge difference between taking one of those big cruise boat trips along the Nile from Cairo to Aswan and taking a felucca ride along the Nile (usually from Luxor to Aswan, I think). Somewhat akin to the differences between Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics. A 'Felucca journey up the Nile' would be a great addition to the itinerary library while a Nile Cruise travel topic (can't really be an itinerary) would be just ho-hum.--Wandering 14:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I'd say Along the Nile would be good itinerary topic, but no-one's started that yet. I thought this might be the first chunk of that, based on someone above talking about "put into the get in / get out sections of Cairo and Luxor". Looking at the actual article, I was wrong; this has much narrower scope. So forget about Along the Nile; maybe someone will do it later, but that's not our question here. Also forget about Nile cruise since that would be confusing — does it mean feluccas around Aswan or big boats Cairo-Luxor, or something else down in Sudan?

So then the question is what to do with the Felucca article. Is it really localised enough that we can just merge the text into Aswan's "get out" section and redirect the original? Or should we keep the article, possibly re-titled, and link to it from Aswan, Luxor, perhaps other places? I lean to the latter, but don't know the area well enough to be sure. Pashley 18:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I'm a little confused as to where the above conversation ended up, but it was good around the part when we were leaning towards keeping this Felucca itinerary and renaming it. The only reason I don't like "Nile cruises" is that it doesn't sound like an itinerary, and would possibly lead to lame copies like "Atlantic cruises". If it's only covering Feluccas on the nile, it would be nice if it had felucca in the name, or not if it's going to describe more than one way to do the journey – cacahuatetalk 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I vote for a 'felucca' and 'nile' itinerary. --Wandering 16:28, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I vote to rename as "Felucca cruise on the Nile" Merrywanderer 15:31, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Redirect to Making a difference which already covers WWOOF. Someone who wants to volunteer on organic farms might search for "WWOOF" here, so it is worth a redirect. Pashley 04:44, 29 December 2007 (EST)

WWOOF is a not-for-profit organisation that helps people travel cheaply (because they work in exchange for their food and accommodation) and make meaningful connections with the local population (because they're staying in people's homes). It's particularly popular with young people (gap years etc) who don't have a lot of money to travel and want to do something meaningful with their time (ie, volunteering). In what way does such an organisation not merit inclusion on a website devoted to travel? (And, by the way, there has been a similar article about WWOOF on the French version of this website since March 2007 without attracting any such problems.)

Merge and redirect to making a difference... nobody is saying that it isnt relavent info, it just doesnt need its own article... a small paragraph describing it and a link to the website is about all we really need to do here, right? we arent going to start listing farms and such, thats what the wwoof website is for. p.s., 2old, theres really no reason to speedy delete most things, 14 days isnt that long, and it is a good opportunity to inform new users of our policies, etc – cacahuatetalk 17:29, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think this is the second visit by WWOOF, if not, a similar article was started about a year ago and came up for VFD, I did not participate in those comments, but I thought it had been decided to delete it. 2old 09:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Searching does not turn it up in vfd archives. Pashley 19:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)

This looks to have been created in good faith, but according to both Wikipedia and this first-hand account, Dawson is a ghost town (on private land) with zero sites open to the public other than the cemetery. Between this and the fact that it's so far out in the boonies that I can't find anything to redirect it to, just delete rather than merge/redirect. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Keep. This is from the official Laurentides Tourism site, and they've cleared their content on Talk:Laurentides. Jpatokal 14:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Don't we have to independently verify that the content has been cleared? Or, is a statement to the effect from the OP sufficient to ensure that wikitravel is not in copyright violation?--Wandering 23:37, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I don't see a verification requirement. Anybody? The language on the talk page looks sufficient for a keep. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:57, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Right, got that, but it may be -- I'm honestly not sure -- that the model-release issue goes away with the clearance given by the tourism site (who presumably had to deal with the issue when they set up the site). Opinions? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 00:21, 6 January 2008 (EST)

At the end of the day, it's always the publisher's responsibility to check the model releases. Wikitravel's type of usage has a pretty low bar for this, as we're not imputing any opinions or trying to directly sell anything via our pictures, so I think we're OK with the uploader's statement that the content is OK. Jpatokal 01:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Wikitravel:Image policy#People in photos says: "In general, we don't really want pictures of travellers or other people in Wikitravel. Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform." - I don't understand why this doesn't apply to this image.

Also, if we can't be anywhere near certain that a copyrighted image has been legitimately uploaded, how on earth can we know for sure that model releases, the details of which we know nothing about and which are only "presumed" to exist, apply for use here?

In addition, the licence statement "This picture is not protected by copyright. The uploader owns the image and has released all rights. This applies worldwide." applied to this image is obviously untrue. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:52, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Delete. Our Wikitravel:Image policy#People in photos is not just about model releases, it is also about what kinds of images belong in a professional travel guide. IMO, there is no place in our guides for promotional "gee-golly look at these guys having fun in location X!" type of photos. The only real reason to keep such an image would be if it were of a user and they were using it on their own user page, but that is not the case here. --PeterTalk 16:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Keep. There is such a place (I've been there) so I've already redirected it to the appropriate region article. ~ 203.144.143.4 14:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Delete. I think 203.144.143.4 needs to make a stronger case than "I've been there". When I google "Hot Thailand," no prizes for guessing what kinds of sites show up. --Wandering 15:26, 7 January 2008 (EST)

When I redirected it, I also added a WikiPedia link [6]. ~ 203.144.143.4 15:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)

So is it Amphoe Hot or just plain Hot? Wikipedia seems to use Amphoe Hot as the article name (even though Amphoe apparently means district and would seem redundant). If it is a legit district then it should have its own page rather than being a redirect. We could call it Amphoe Hot as wikipedia does but that'd mean a disambiguation page or a redirect from Hot to Amphoe Hot (as wikipedia does).--Wandering 18:42, 7 January 2008 (EST)

It's a sub-district of Chiang Mai Province, and sub-districts of Thai provinces (there are over 900 of them) are skipped in the Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy. The only reason to make this an article as opposed to a redirect would be if Tambon Hot (as opposed to Amphoe Hot) warranted it, and it doesn't. ~ 203.144.143.4 01:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)

At the least, I suggest you put in a reference to Amphoe Hot in the Chiang Mai (province) page. A redirect makes no sense to me if there is absolutely no reference to the originating page in the terminating page. Is there some sort of Redirect policy? Or, even a list of redirects? --Wandering 13:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

"Speedy delete" and left a note in the (anon) user's talk page. (Does it make sense to have a separate Wikitravel:Speedy delete record where speedy deletes can be recorded for review (rather than cluttering up this article)? --Wandering 22:28, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An anonymous user nominated this page without comment. It does, however, appear to be a feature rather than a destination, as the possibility of finding lodging in an underwater cave seems somewhat dim. Besides, the various caves are not physically grouped together.

Delete and put the general information in the Yucatán Peninsula article and the specific information in the article of the nearest city.Texugo 01:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)

And on second look there is already an itinerary article for Cenotes of the Yucatán that could also absorb any additional information.Texugo 02:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Redirect for sure, with optional merge, but not clear to where. Might "Cenotes of the Yucatan" be the correct root article, consistent with our naming conventions as regards diacriticals? Unless I miss something, the diacritical-free name should be preferred under most conditions. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 16:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Merge and Redirect Move photos to other pages. The Cenotes of the Yucatán article is a good one and I can imagine helpful to a visitor.

Speedy deleted (again). This article was talked about being created, but nothing ever done about it... it's been created a few times by a spammer, but I think we should keep speedying it until someone actually writes an article about it. If you're curious what it was originally intended to be, it was in response to a writer who did a trip using only WT guides, but made some fundamental mistakes such as not realizing there were district articles to our large city guides... and wrote a bad article about us because of it. So this page is meant to be an idiots guide to Wikitravel – cacahuatetalk 20:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The first is a completely blank itinerary, created September 2006. Seems the only reason it was created was to fix a broken redirect from the second, which was previously an empty outline article. ~ 203.144.143.4 03:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)